Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Clause 16 - Local development documents

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 89, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert— 
 '( ) a strategic planning statement; 
 ( ) the authority's Local Transport Plan;'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

David Wilshire: Perhaps you will allow me to say at the outset, Mr. Pike, that in your absence this morning the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) got a message that his wife was about to give birth, so he is not here. I am sure that we would all like to wish him and his wife well. We on the Conservative Benches have had to deal with a funeral, and those on the Liberal Benches have to deal with a birth, so if a Government Member is planning to get married shortly, and is missing for that reason, we shall have a full hand of such occurrences.
 I raise that matter partly because I certainly want to send my best wishes to the hon. Gentleman, but also because a number of our forthcoming amendments are grouped with lead amendments under his name. My understanding is that it is perfectly in order for anybody to move such amendments, and from time to time it will probably be best for us to do so. The official Opposition might be many things, but we are not mind readers, so we shall do our level best to interpret some of the amendments. That is necessary because, as I understand the matter, the lead amendment must be moved in order to get to the amendments that are tucked in behind it.

Peter Pike: May I clarify that? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: any member can move an amendment that has been tabled, and yes, the lead amendment is the key amendment. If a Member on the Conservative Benches has to move an amendment that he has not tabled, that is quite in order.

David Wilshire: I am grateful for that, Mr. Pike.
 I had just finished speaking to amendment No. 196 before lunch, and I had accepted that the way in which it was worded might not appeal to the Minister. However, what it seeks to achieve is important. Amendment No. 196 would leave out subsection (2), which states: 
''The local planning authority may also specify in the scheme such other documents as they think are appropriate.''
 Amendment No. 196 seeks to make the point that for the local authority to say, ''This is what we want,'' is an enormously wide power, and I do not see why it should be. The documents are either necessary or they are not. The Minister might not want to delete subsection (2), and could argue that there is a need for it. The sensible alternative—we could consider it on Report—is for the local planning authority also to specify in the scheme such other documents as they have good reason to think are appropriate. There should be a test of reasonableness. 
 As the Minister was saying this morning, although we like to think that all local authorities are brilliant, or if they are not exactly brilliant now, they are getting better, there will be some, as he sadly conceded, that will drag their feet. In an imperfect world there will, I fear, be planning authorities that occasionally seek to act unreasonably. Either there should not be a provision that gives them a completely free hand, or, if the Minister thinks that it is a good idea to give them some discretion, that should be constrained by a test of reasonableness. Amendment No. 196 seeks to achieve that. 
 Amendment No. 88 raises some different issues and relates to subsection (1), which states: 
''Documents which must be specified in the local development scheme as local development documents are''—
 and there here follows a list of what such things are. Surprisingly, all that it can bring itself to say is: 
''documents of such descriptions as are prescribed''.
 I assume that these are documents to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and, at the risk of repeating myself, I have to say that this is rule by diktat. The sole arbiter of all this procedure will be the Secretary of State who will prescribe it. I hope that we can discuss what sort of documents the Minister has in mind. It could be anything; there is no test of reasonableness. Curiously—although perhaps not so curiously for this Government—the Government think it necessary to go one step beyond, to say that the Secretary of State can do what he likes. 
 Clause 16(1)(b) speaks of 
''the local planning authority's statement of community involvement.''
 That is really a genuflection to political correctness, as I see it. It is most curious that this is the only statement mentioned, because the number of documents that could be listed is legion, yet the only one worthy of mention in the eyes of the Government is a statement of community involvement. Before I am accused of all sorts of things that I do not intend, let me make it absolutely clear that I am all in favour of a statement of community involvement—but why is it the only one listed? 
 Amendment No. 89 would amplify the list a little. It would have been possible to table all sorts of amendments adding all sorts of documents, but for this debate we are right to list at least those two. Earlier this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said that it was important to remember, in the context of the listing of 
 strategic planning statements, that there might be a region that did not have an elected assembly. As things stand, the strategic planning statements, documents and policies are more than likely to be decided on by people who have no democratic credentials. Indeed, some of those involved seem to have no grasp of the issues either. 
 My hon. Friend pointed out that in the absence of an elected regional assembly, this would be a sensible way of requiring a local planning authority to take on the role of making strategic planning statements. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I anticipate that the Minister might be tempted to say, as he has in the past, that a local planning authority covers far too small an area for any regional or strategic thinking. However, an argument against dismissing the amendment is that he might consider the idea of charging joint committees of local planning authorities with the job. The joint committee could cover the entire area of the Government's artificial region—and they are artificial because the south-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley suggested, extends from Milton Keynes to the Isle of Man—or rather, the Isle of Wight. What on earth bits of Surrey, and bits of my constituency, have in common with the Isle of Wight when it comes to strategic planning, I do not know. The areas are so artificial. 
 If, however, we are to be forced down the route of strategic planning statements for areas, it is important that they be determined either by local planning authorities or by joint committees of local planning authorities. I know that the argument regularly trotted out against joint committees is that although the people on them may be elected, the joint committees themselves are not. At least, however, the members of a joint committee that has been formed to produce a planning statement will have been elected. Therefore the amendment standing in our name is worthy of consideration. 
 In reforming the planning process, we urgently need to emphasise transport plans. At the moment we tend to have wish lists that say, ''It would be a good idea if we did this.'' What they all too often lack is an indication of when that will happen and when it will be funded. Plans may make general statements to the effect that it would be nice to build a bypass here and a bypass there, and that we would need this, that and the other. However, without a coherent planning statement that makes it crystal clear which transport improvements will happen when, it is difficult to know when it will be best to release land for development, because no one will know when the roads and the railways will be available. It is therefore entirely proper that we should include a transport plan in the Bill. 
 For the same reasons, it would be wrong, for the purposes of this debate, to leave the determination of local transport plans to unelected people in some distant place—be it Milton Keynes, the Isle of Wight, Southampton, Brighton or wherever else the Government think it sensible to run an artificial region from. 
 The Government may not like the detailed wording of the amendments, and I can only repeat that the Opposition do not have the services of parliamentary draftsmen. However, our intention is to make it clear that we should not simply leave it to the Secretary of State to prescribe whatever documents he likes without at least setting out what they might be. If the Minister is not prepared to accept our suggestions, I hope that he will at least tell us what documents the Secretary of State might prescribe.

Tony McNulty: Welcome to our proceedings, Mr. Pike. I am sure that they will be as much fun this afternoon as they were this morning.
 Let me start by saying that Labour Members entirely associate themselves with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) about the hon. Member for Ludlow and his breaking news, which he announced after our previous sitting. We all wish him and his wife Godspeed and the best of luck with their delivery. I shall resist the temptation to take up the trite remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris), who wanted me to make a crack about there being at least one Liberal Democrat who has enjoyed a labour experience. [Hon. Members: ''Oh.''] That is why I resisted. I will get a new joke writer, who will not be allowed to touch on the issue. 
 Unusually, the problem with the amendments is not the wording or the paucity of the draftsmanship—I feel like getting my violin out every time we hear about the Opposition not having an army of draftsmen to assist them. I am tempted to reply that they had one for 18 years, and they still did not do a terribly good job, so what they do now is grist for the mill. However, the difficulty with the present amendments is the substance, not the wording. As I shall explain, a core strategy—it would, I assume, roughly equate to the strategic planning statement, although the Bill does not elaborate on that—must be part and parcel of the local development documents that make up the development plan. 
 As regards 
''the authority's Local Transport Plan'',
 the term ''the authority'' is not defined, and we can only assume that ''Local Transport Plan'' means the existing local transport plan. As I shall explain, the provision would not apply to all authorities, and would effectively be a bidding statement. Furthermore, it would not be terribly useful, given that transport is clearly a key part of the core planning strategy, which is an element of the local development documents. 
 The first document proposed in amendment No. 89 is therefore already included in the Bill. I will elucidate further what the local development documents should incorporate, as I was specifically asked to do. The second document is not a planning document and would not cover all the authorities affected by the clause. Amendment No. 89 is therefore not appropriate. 
 Amendment No. 196 would remove the local planning authority's discretion to include such documents as it thinks appropriate in its local 
 development scheme. Again, there should be nothing terribly troubling about the proposal in the clause. It refers to additional documents that the local planning authority considers appropriate in the context of its local development scheme. They will not be part of the development plan, but they will be the rough equivalent of current supplementary planning guidance. It is more appropriate that they stay. If a local planning authority wanted to produce local development documents that were unreasonable or capricious, the Secretary of State could direct it to modify its local development scheme to prevent it from doing so, even though he supposedly has malign powers. There will be an inspection or review of the integrity of the local development scheme, as we have already discussed. 
 Regulations will determine which documents local authorities will be required to include. As I am rapidly learning, that is essentially what ''as are prescribed'' means. The first document will be the core strategy, which will contain the core policies for delivering the spatial strategy for the whole of the local authority's area. It will be supported by reasonable justification, as is the case for development plans at the moment. As I learned during my time on a planning committee, the paragraphs of reasonable justification that one rushes through, looking to get to the next policy involvement, are in many cases just as important and integral a part of the document. 
 The policy should be location specific, rather then site specific, and for that reason it may be more appropriately illustrated by a key diagram, although authorities may choose to illustrate it on the Ordnance Survey-based proposals map. Some of them may need to be expressed as criteria-based policies. 
 Secondly, site-specific policies and proposals including a proposals map for the whole of the local authority's area will be required. That should set out any details of any site-specific policies, outside the actual area plans. The map will be, as it is now, a proposals plan map that shows existing and revised designations of areas of land, such as conservation areas and green belt land. Everyone who has seen a unitary development map will know the sort of designations that there are. 
 The map will also define the sites for future land uses, or developments and the areas to which specific policies apply. The map should also show the locations of any proposed or actual area action plan. Some authorities may choose not to have any area action plans. Such plans might need to be defined in more detail on separate, inset maps, which would show all the proposals in the area covered by the inset. The map should be Ordnance Survey-based. 
 Rather than submitting those two types of development plan documents separately, local planning authorities are free to include them in one integrated development plan document. In such instances, the end result would be similar to the proposed arrangements in Wales that we discussed earlier. 
 These are only two of the compulsory features of the local development plan. If authorities wish to propose area action plans, to which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) referred earlier, those too would be development plan documents that should be identified in the scheme. These plans will be for key areas of change or conservation. Site-specific area plans will be needed for areas in which there is a concentration of proposals for change. Such area action plans could cover a town centre plan, or a plan for a small town or village where change is anticipated or specific conservation measures are required. 
 The provision that amendment No. 196 would delete allows local authorities to prepare and include in their local development framework less formal documents that are equivalent to current supplementary planning guidance under the present system. These would include site development briefs and would be adopted through shorter, simpler procedures, but would be afforded less weight in the consideration of proposals for development. However, they may be a material consideration. By deleting the subsection, we would limit the effectiveness and strength of the local development documents that a local planning authority puts together.

Sydney Chapman: I am partially persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am full of admiration for the way that he is single-handedly carrying the weight of the Bill. I appreciate that very much. Although I am beginning to accept why amendment No. 89 might not be necessary, I do not know why subsection (1)(b), which requires
''the local planning authority's statement of community involvement'',
 is necessary, as clause 17(1) states: 
''The local planning authority must prepare a statement of community involvement.''
 I am not sure why that needs to be stressed twice. Although I begin to take the Minister's other points, I think that it is unnecessary.

Tony McNulty: That is because the statement of community involvement sits between the development plan documents, the compulsory nature of which I outlined, and the subsequent supplementary planning guidance, which can be a material consideration, but which is not a development plan. The SCI is included in the Bill, and affords duties to the local planning authority that did not previously exist. That needs to be said far more than simply—''Oh, by the way, the SCI is a document that is as much a statutory obligation as discretionary.'' The SCI is not strictly a development plan document, in the sense that it is not about land use planning or the spatial dimension, but it is a fundamental, statutory element of the process of drawing together the local development scheme. The SCI is a necessary document, but needs to be separated from the development plan and supplementary guidance.
 Given both the core documents that deal with strategic planning as part of the compulsory elements of the local development documents and the nature of the local transport plan, amendment No. 89 is unnecessary. Also, ''authority'' is not defined—it is 
 not even ill defined—and will thus cover only part of the local planning authority. The rest of the amendment is not terribly useful either. Amendment No. 196 would unnecessarily restrict the efficacy of the local development scheme and framework that a local planning authority comes up with. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will resist both the amendments, despite the eloquence with which they were introduced.

Paul Beresford: Several times in Committee, I have suggested to the Minister that there be probing amendments to inspire a response. We had a response, and it was helpful. It has clarified matters and has even given my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet—the expert sitting over my left-hand shoulder—some satisfaction. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 197, in
clause 16, page 9, line 32, leave out '(taken as a whole)'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 198, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 33, leave out '(however expressed)'.
 Amendment No. 229, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (6).

David Wilshire: I shall speak to all three amendments, even though amendment No. 229 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 Amendments Nos. 197 and 198 touch on issues that we have dealt with before. I am grateful to the Minister, as I received a copy of the letter that he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, which addressed amendment No. 198 on the issue of ''however expressed''. 
 The Minister undertook to give us the legal precedent for ''however expressed''. That was helpful, and I thank him for doing so. The only problem is that the document I received contains what I know as a sheep-stealing argument. That is, would it be a good idea to reintroduce capital punishment for stealing sheep? The justification is whether we used to do that—there is a legal precedent for that punishment, therefore it is a good idea. All the letter does is give the precedent, but gets us no further on the question of why the provision is a good idea. I am sorry for that objection, despite the letter. 
 I now accept that it is not the first time in Christendom that ''however expressed'' has been used. However, I still contend that there is no need for it, and that there was probably no need in the past either. The letter contains several paragraphs on where ''however expressed'' can be found and some interesting background about previous legislation, which is not relevant to the debate. However, our attention is drawn to paragraph 17(3) of part II of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states: 
''In this paragraph 'existing policy' means a policy or proposal the substance of which (however expressed) was contained in a local plan mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).''
 That is exactly my point. The relevant information is either in the plan or it is not. The phrase ''however expressed'' is unnecessary. If I read the provision without those words, leaving out what the Minister wants us to keep, it still makes perfect sense. We have been told where it was used in the past, and another example has been provided of that, with which I will not burden the Committee. Perhaps I asked the wrong question when I asked for the legal precedent. We should have asked for the legal justification and the reason why it was necessary to use the phrase in the past. I have seen no explanation to persuade me. I still want to press amendment No. 198, because we still have not been told why the words ''however expressed'' are needed in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 197 would omit ''taken as a whole''. Subsection (3) states: 
''The local development documents must (taken as a whole) set out the authority's policies''.
 What is wrong with saying, ''The local development documents must set out the authority's policies''? I do not see what the words ''taken as a whole'' add. The documents either set out the policies or they do not. If they do not, they have not met the requirements of the Bill. Will the Minister have another stab at telling us why we need this verbiage? Surely good legislation is brief legislation. Racking up extra phrases just because it was done in the past is relying on a sheep-stealing argument. I am not impressed with it. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow has done us a favour. I feel chastened that I did not think of the point myself. Amendment No. 229 would leave out subsection (6), the first words of which are: 
''Regulations under this section may prescribe''.
 I have hunted through the rest of the clause for the creation of regulation-making powers. Nowhere in clause 16 do I see the grant of powers, which would presumably go to the Secretary of State, to make regulations. Where is the authority to make the regulations in subsection (6) to be found? If there is no authority there is a hole in the Bill and it will be necessary, if the Government want to persist with the matter, to provide somewhere in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to section 16. 
 At least subsection (6) says that the regulations ''may'' prescribe various matters. That is some progress. The draftsmen had calmed down a bit by then and were less draconian in their approach. Perhaps they should be reprimanded by the Minister for failing to provide a jackboot on this occasion, given that a little discretion is allowed. I am grateful for small mercies. However, I became very suspicious on reading paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (6), which set out what can be prescribed. The heart of the matter is paragraph (b), under which, if any regulations exist, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe 
''the form and content of the local development documents''.
 I find that extraordinary. Here we have a Bill that sets out to establish that local authorities must be allowed to produce local development plans. The purpose of the Bill, so the argument runs, is to devolve power to local government. The Secretary of State will tell the authorities, ''Go away and develop the local development document—but when you do, this is what you must put in it. It does not matter what you think or what you find, or what the local circumstances are. Here are my directions as to the content of the plan.'' 
 What is the point of having local government if the Secretary of State says what is in the document? The Secretary of State's power to prescribe the plan's content is amazing. I hope that the Minister can tell me that the provision means something other than its content: he might mean its typeface, its number of pages or the quality of its paper. If, however, it means that the Secretary of State can prescribe the plans words, we might as well as go home. We will be wasting our time if the Secretary of State is to write every local plan by determining what goes in and what stays out. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow has done us a huge favour by suggesting that we should delete that power. Unless we can be reassured that ''content'' has a meaning other than that in my dictionary, I am bitterly opposed to subsection (6). 
 Subsection (6)(c) also concerns me. It states that by regulations, which do not appear to exist, somebody—presumably the Secretary of State—may prescribe 
''the time at which any step in the preparation of any such document must be taken.''
 This morning, we have spent a lot of time being told by the Minister that our proposals to put timetables into the process were wrong and inappropriate, but now we have discovered a timetable. He told us why our amendments to impose timetables were wrong, and now he will have to argue why an amendment taking out a timetable is wrong, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Sydney Chapman: In relation to amendment No. 229, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—I almost said my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow—and I shall not detain the Committee.
 I hope that my point is not thought to be flippant, but I want to return to amendments Nos. 197 and 198, which would delete unnecessary phrases. I was grateful to be told that there is a precedent for the phrase ''however expressed'' in the principal 1990 Act. In the gentlest possible way, I want to remind the Minister that when we were in Standing Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, that Bill introduced for the first time—in other words, there was no precedent—the horrific word ''chair'' to describe what I would prefer to call the ''chairman'' of the assembly. A ''chair'' is an inanimate object—incidentally, my surname is ''Chapman'' rather than ''Chap''. 
 Where it suits the Government, they forget precedent and bring in a new word, which creates great emotion among Government and Opposition Members. If I could wave a wand and ask the Minister to do something between now and Report, I would ask him to go through the Bill to see what phrases he could take out of it. He could take out many phrases, which would reduce the size of the Bill and take nothing away from the Government's intentions. I hope that he feels that he can at least accept amendments Nos. 197 and 198.

Tony McNulty: I shall probably resist the hon. Gentleman's delightful invitation to do even more work filleting the Bill's language, although I might accept it on a subsequent Bill. We had great fun on the Greater London Authority Bill, but it was a tad unkind to describe the current chair of the GLA, Trevor Phillips, as an inanimate object, although I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman intended to do.
 The short answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Spelthorne is clause 87(1)(a). The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that I should have clocked the Isles of Scilly question, which nearly always appears at the back of Bills. Making general prescribing powers through regulation is a common feature of legislation: in this case, they are built into the Bill in clause 87(1)(a). 
 I cannot ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments, which would not achieve the objectives sought by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. My powers of persuasion may have failed miserably in respect of the appropriateness of words and phrases in the Bill. In respect of my letter, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked for precedent—not for a rehash of my justification for the phrase—and that is precisely what he got. 
 We believe that amendments Nos. 197 and 198 are not useful. Local development documents must be taken as a whole in respect of the development and use of land. When subsequently applied to specific purposes, the policies in the documents should be viewed as interlocking and taken as a whole. That is the measure against which applications should be determined and is preferable to picking and choosing. 
 I fully accept much of the annoyance of parliamentary counsel and other lawyers that the language is clumsy. If we start from the premise that English and Welsh legislation is written in English, we are in for a deeply unsatisfactory experience in Committee. The phrase ''taken as a whole'' is necessary to bind all the elements in the local development documents together. 
 In respect of amendment No. 198, the phrase ''however expressed'' is necessary to get beyond the land use, development and control elements of the documents and to gain the wider spatial dimension, largely for the same reasons as suggested when we debated clause 1. 
 Amendment No. 229 would remove the specific power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out 
which descriptions of local development documents are development plan documents'',
 the ''form and content'' of such documents and so forth. It should reassure hon. Gentlemen to know that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor I want to write everybody's local development documents. The regulations are definitely not about allowing the Under-Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister to insist on the content and substance of every local development document in the country. We do not want such a power. 
 The prescriptions in subsection (6)(a), (b) and (c) are simply an attempt to secure some consistency across the country in respect of the descriptions, the form and content—what needs to be in them rather than the substance—and the time taken in preparation. I alluded to timetable regulations this morning in rejecting their application to various parts of the process.

David Wilshire: Before the Minister moves on from the issue of content, he has not answered the point. He said that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor he wants to prescribe the content. I take him at his word and I am glad to hear that, but why, then, does he want the power in the Bill? The Minister says that he does not want it, but he is not prepared to take it out. He should be thinking of a different word from ''content''.

Tony McNulty: I think that ''content'' will suffice. What I should perhaps have added to my statement that neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor I want or seek a power is that it will not be made explicit in regulations that we have the power to write the content of local development documents. ''Form and content'' means the formal shape that the documents should take and what should be included in them, and it covers headings and sub-headings.
 I am assured that the provision means that I will not be up until all hours writing Spelthorne's local development documents and that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, I will not be issued a blue pencil that allows me to rewrite documents. The provision is simply about achieving consistency, which is very important. 
 As hon. Members with any experience of planning know, it is important to distinguish clearly between development plan documents, with all that they entail, and documents that are supplementary to them, which may include material planning matters, not least because the non-development plan documents, or supplementary planning guidance, and the other elements that will be part of the local development documents that we shall introduce, will not be subject to independent testing. They are not as rigorously examined as development plan documents but are still important, in that they capture all that is necessary for the local development framework of particular areas. 
 I have already dealt with policies, proposals, area action plans and other site-specific elements such as the SCI. It is important that we achieve some common standard among local authorities of form and content 
 and the timing at which particular steps are taken in the preparation of documents. For that reason, subsection (6) must remain in clause 16. The hon. Member for Ludlow may have done us a service by prompting a debate to tease out greater clarity on our intention, but the subsection is important to the integrity of clause 16. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to resist amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 229.

David Wilshire: I have listened with interest to the Minister's comments. In the past, I have often been told to look further in a Bill, and I have always said on such occasions that it would be sensible if general definitions and general powers were laid out. Certainly, general definitions appear at the beginning of the Bill. The general powers would be much more useful at the beginning than at the end. In due course, we shall deal with clause 87. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to reflect upon it now. It enables me to table an amendment to rename clause 87, entitled ''Regulations and orders'', the jackboot clause, because it is where the dictatorial powers lie. However, that is for another day.
 Let me deal with the Minister's attempt to explain why the verbiage is necessary. He said that it was necessary to take the measure as a whole. I would have thought that self-evident, but the Minister considers it necessary to spell out the obvious aspects of ''as a whole''. If we are to have legislation that spells out the obvious, which seemed to be his argument, I am surprised that the Bill does not include a requirement that all plans be written in English. It is self-evident that they should be written in English, and the Government do not think it necessary to say so, but the Minister is busily saying that even though something else is self-evident, he wants it left in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman should hold his fire, because I suspect that significant amendments on part 6 will suggest that documents should not be written in English only.

David Wilshire: I shall enter into debate on Welsh matters with some trepidation. However, in the absence of an amendment that documents should be written in Welsh, it is self-evident that they will be written in English. The Minister may like to reflect on that. If he were to spell out every obvious thing, the Bill would be five times as thick as it is.
 The more I listened to the Minister's comments, the more convinced I became that I was right and he was wrong. He sought to invent a new definition of ''content.'' In the end, he referred to headings. I thought that he really meant the scope of the document and I have no difficulty with that, but he insisted on ''content'' and said that that could mean approximately what ought to be included here. 
 As the Minister helpfully cited precedent, let me helpfully cite precedent too. If he were to go to the newsagent on the corner by Portcullis House and buy a box of Dairy Milk chocolates, he would find inside a list of the contents, which would describe what was in the box. If, when he came to munch his way through 
 his chocolates, he found that the description of the contents did not match what was in the box, the manufacturers would be liable to be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. There is a precedent in law that suggests that ''content'' means something exact. The contents of a box of chocolates are exactly what is in the box and no more or less. It is not a case of someone saying, ''If you are lucky, you might find the following chocolates,'' or, ''The box might contain fudge, but it might not.'' That is not what the contents are about; that is the scope. It is fine to say, ''Some of the things that we make will be in the box,'' but such a statement is not a statement of the contents. 
 I urge the Minister to reflect, because he says that he does not want the power to prescribe the contents, but, to me—and in my dictionary—''contents'' means simply, ''exactly what is in here.'' He might mean an index, or all sorts of other things. I support his argument that it would be helpful to ensure that all plans are roughly the same. However, whether he likes it or not, unless he is prepared to change ''content,'' he will be kept up all night writing Spelthorne's plan. I will like what a Conservative council writes, but he might not and might therefore say, ''I have the power to control the content.'' He has not persuaded me on that point. I urge him to talk to the lawyers and the draftsmen to find out whether they are persuaded, even if he is not, that this is a clumsy way in which to do something reasonable. Unless he changes the wording, he will either run foul of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or be writing plans all night. 
 I have listened carefully and thought about the matter, and I do not want to vote on the single point of ''content'' with all the other amendments. I would consider returning to the matter on Report, as a separate issue on its own, when perhaps we might vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 230, in
clause 16, page 10, line 9, at end insert 'or'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 199, in 
clause 16, page 10, line 10, at end add— 
 '(8) Decisions on whether to approve documents as required by subsection (7)(b) must be taken within 6 months of the adoption of the resolution required by subsection (7)(a).'.
 No. 202, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 42, at end insert— 
 'and approved by the Secretary of State under section 16(7)(b)'.

David Wilshire: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow will not mind me moving his amendment, which is the lead amendment. The others stand in my name. Initially, when I considered his amendment, I thought, ''What is the significance of adding the word 'or'?'' I hope that I do the hon. Gentleman justice. I will explain my understanding of the matter and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; indeed, he will enjoy doing so. Subsection (7) states:
''A document is a local development document only in so far as it or any part of it—
(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development document;
(b) is approved by the Secretary of State under section 20 or 26.''
 As with other legislation, the wording implies ''and,'' even though ''and'' is not included. Thus subsection (7) implies that for the conditions to be fulfilled both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be met. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman wants it to be one or the other. It would be helpful to have on the record that ''and'' is implied. We need to know why the Minister considers that it should be both rather than one or the other. When the hon. Member for Ludlow returns, he will be able to read the Minister's reasons for resisting the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 199 seeks to introduce a timetable into subsection (7). The document is local only in so far as it is adopted by resolution and/or approved by the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to impose a limit on the time by which resolutions are passed or approved by the Secretary of State. Secretaries of State have been known to sit on matters for a long time. For instance, the inspector sat on the terminal 5 public inquiry report for a long time, and so did the Secretary of State. 
 I do not equate the local planning exercise with public inquiries into major infrastructure projects, but the same principle applies. The process of taking decisions—of acting upon the work that has been done, which can sometimes take a long time—needs to be timetabled. The Minister may think that six months is unreasonable; he may say that it should be only a few weeks or even, on occasions, as long as 12 months. I am not deeply wedded to it being six months. I am trying to get the Minister to consider the principle of having a time limit, on having to say how long it should take to complete the process of approval. 
 I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of the amendment, although he may want to come forward with his own version on Report. However, it is important that we do not have an open-ended time scale that would allow people to sit on documents for ever.

Sydney Chapman: I want to be as brief as possible. I want first to refer to amendment No. 230, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne correctly pointed out that subsection (7) requires that the document is a local development document only in so far as it is
''adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local planning document'',
 and is 
''approved by the Secretary of State under section 20 or 26.''
 I go along with my hon. Friend, and say that it ought to include ''and'', which is implied, as well as ''or''. However, I wish to make a further point. 
 I am sorry to have to return to the matter, but in an attempt to make the Bill no longer than it need be I put this simple point to the Minister. If a document has not been adopted by resolution of the local planning authority, it cannot go to the Secretary of State to be approved by him. The provision is quite unnecessary, unless the Minister can persuade me 
 otherwise. Why do we need subsection (7)(a)? It could be dealt with simply, and without ambiguity, if the clause stated that a document was a local development document only in so far as it or any part of it had been approved by the Secretary of State under sections 20 or 26. 
 I turn to the matter of placing time restraints on the Secretary of State. Not only is six months the right maximum, but it is essential, to achieve fairness, that restraints and challenges are imposed on the Secretary of State as well as on the local planning authority. I shall not rehearse the arguments—we heard them earlier—but I am sure that the provision would command greater respect if self-imposed time restraints were placed on the Secretary of State.

Paul Beresford: I rise, with some hesitation, to take issue with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I accept that English is, near enough, my second language, but one matter that rather disturbs me is that the word ''or'' would be a double-edged sword. The Minister will not like a provision enabling the Secretary of State's intentions to be overridden at the beginning. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to override the local authorities' decisions, forcing them to accept his wishes whether or not they had adopted such a plan.
 I support my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, however. We have consistently hammered the point, and I hope that we shall continue to do so, about the need for timetables to be imposed on Ministers if they are imposed on authorities. In this day and age when they are dictated to so much, local authorities understand timetables. They must work to them much more than the Government do. It is important that they know where they stand early on.

Tony McNulty: I welcome the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am very pleased that he managed to get back for at least part of our deliberations today. His colleagues will explain why the hon. Member for Ludlow is absent, but I ask hon. Members not to pursue partisan remarks about that, because he has good reasons. We could have a row with Plaid Cymru, whose representative has yet to grace us with his presence at all, but that is by the by.
 The debate on amendment No. 230 has been interesting and I am minded to give the matter further consideration, given the strength of feeling about it. I suspect that the word ''or'' would be superfluous, but if the amendment is withdrawn I shall certainly consider it further. When clause 16(7) is read together with clause 22, which deals with the adoption of local development documents, and clauses 20 and 26, which deal with the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and default, it is clear that paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 16(7) are not cumulative—so it would not be appropriate to link them with the word ''and''. The word ''or'' would be superfluous, I suggest; one or the other would happen. Either, as I think the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, the local development document would be adopted by 
 resolution of the local planning authority—there being nothing wrong with it and the Secretary of State having decided that there was no need to intervene, give direction or call it in—or it would go along the other route, and be approved by the Secretary of State following a call-in and subsequent discussion. Both would not happen, but neither are they alternatives. I shall certainly think about the use of the word ''or'', but I suspect that examination of clauses 17, 20 and 26 will reveal that it would be unnecessary. 
 Amendments Nos. 199 and 202 are, I think, based on a misunderstanding of the current and proposed planning system. Under the current system, when a local plan, UDP or structure plan is adopted by the local authority, that is it. It is not then subject to a process of approval by the Secretary of State. I can draw on my nasty metro-centric, non-rural experience of being involved once or twice in the UDP system. When the document is formally adopted by the borough, that is the end of it. Amendment No. 199 would put a six-month limit on the Secretary of State to do something that he is not obliged to do under either the existing system or the new one. 
 Perhaps the provision should establish a six-month period in which to read the document or to decide whether it should be used to prop up a table, rather as a copy of ''Dod's'' is being used to prop up a rickety table in the middle of this Room. No duty exists, so there is no need to impose a time limit. The Secretary of State has no role after the adoption of a UDP, and the existing state of affairs will prevail under the new system. 
 Even though the amendments are unnecessary, the issue has come up once or twice before, so I shall spend a minute or two discussing the principle of setting a deadline for the Secretary of State to approve LDDs, whatever the trigger point might be. It would not be sensible to set a deadline for the Secretary of State in this matter, because the length of time that he will need to consider an LDD will vary, depending on the point of preparation that it has reached when he issues the direction to call in the document; the subject matter of the LDD; and the reason for the call-in. That is a straightforward and, I hope, obvious point. Similar issues relate to the Secretary of State's default powers. It would not be sensible to try to impose in primary legislation deadlines for every possible scenario or outcome. 
 I can offer the hon. Member for Spelthorne some comfort, however. Given the importance that we attach to timely revisions of plans and up-to-date policies, the Secretary of State will proceed as speedily as is consistent with full and proper consideration of the issues. In a broader context, outside the Bill, hon. Members will know that there have been self-imposed deadlines on the Ministers in the Department who are responsible for planning to turn round applications that have been recovered or called in. We are talking about the tail end of a very lengthy process, so we are committed to turning round such applications as rapidly as we can. We certainly try to do that. 
 I will consider whether, as a consequence of the Bill passing through both Houses of Parliament, there should be a self-imposed duty on Ministers in the broadest sense in respect of any call-in of LDDs. That would be appropriate only if there were that element of power, limited though it is, coming back to the centre in what is, after all, a fully fledged decentralising planning Bill. With those assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister: at long last, we seem to be making a little progress. Two offers to reconsider on one group of amendments is a joy that I had not expected to come my way. It perhaps grieves me slightly that his first offer—he clearly said that he would come back and do something on Report—related to an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow. It is perhaps my misfortune that I achieve my greatest successes when using someone else's amendment, but I believe in learning new tricks from all sorts of people.
 I suppose that, having moved a Liberal amendment, I should now rush out and issue press releases, taking the credit not only for moving it so eloquently and persuading the Minister but for picking it up in the first place. The hon. Gentleman would surely have done that to me in true Liberal Democrat fashion had the roles been reversed—[Interruption.] It is always the case that Government and Conservative Members squabble about many things, but as soon as there is a chance to beat the Liberal party over the head, there is support on both sides of the Committee. At least I have got one thing right in the course of these proceedings. 
 I am also grateful to the Minister in another respect. I may put more words into his mouth than he would wish, but I think that I heard a little movement towards the idea of timetables. He might not like to call them that, but let us be thankful for small mercies. I welcome what he said, and I do not want to spoil the offer by being churlish about it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, and to all the other members of the Committee for your indulgence in allowing me to be absent this morning for the important funeral of a very long-standing neighbour, and the father of my best man, in Suffolk. I was very pleased to be able to attend and I am particularly grateful to my colleagues, who must have had a hugely increased work load in standing in for me and dealing with all the amendments.
 In a sense, it is a little indulgent of me to want to participate in the stand part debate, because I have not heard the whole debate on the clause, so I apologise if anything that I say is repetitious. Having said that, I want to participate because these provisions are some of the most important in the Bill. We have dealt with part 1, which deals with the regional aspect, and we 
 now come to part 2, which deals with the local aspect. 
 One of the major problems with the present planning system is the delay in producing the local plan and the structure plan. The new system is designed to replace the local plans. I worry that we will replace one system that does not work with another system that will be even slower. It will be slower because of the scheme introduced in clause 14, the documents introduced in clause 16 and the planning documents introduced in clause 18, covering all the consultations and timetables, and the Secretary of State's powers of revision, revocation and renewal. Before we accept clause 16, I hope that the Minister will assure Opposition Members on and, more importantly, planning practitioners in the widest sense, that his proposals will work in a more streamlined way than the present system, allowing more consultation with less central involvement. However, I cannot see how the new system—the introduction of those three separate elements to replace one element—will work better. I fear that we will pass this legislation in the knowledge that it will slow the whole system down. 
 The planning system is vital for the economic growth of this country; for individuals who wish to carry out small developments on their own houses; and for individuals, partnerships and businesses that wish to carry out larger developments. The Green Paper makes it perfectly clear that 90 per cent. of all planning applications are eventually refused; it is the remaining 10 per cent. of controversial applications that we are setting up a system to deal with. It will take a long time to deal with those controversial applications. I know that the Bill contains powers for the Secretary of State to intervene to try to make things quicker, and powers that allow the inspector to intervene. However, I suspect that we will rue the day that we agreed to this clause.

Tony McNulty: I simply do not agree with that. With the local development scheme and the local development documents inside and outside the development plan, and with the other elements in the clause that will prescribe what comprises the local development documents that are part of the development plan, I feel that the proposals for the ways in which applications for planning permission will principally be judged in any area action plans involving major change or conservation will, by the time everything is explained through regulation as well as through the Bill, give greater clarity, speed and flexibility to a planning system that is rooted in a wider spatial dimension that goes beyond land use. As I have said before, the Bill will also set out the matters to which the planning authority must have regard when preparing the LDD. We must not forget the sustainability appraisals that must govern the proposals in each of the local development documents; or the requirement for LDDs generally to conform with the regional spatial strategy or the spatial development strategy in London; or the requirement for the authority to prepare an annual monitoring report on the implementation of the local
 development scheme; or the provision for authorities to work together, which we will come to shortly.
 The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to suggest that the local development documents are a key element of the Bill and the new system. However, with all that is in clause 16 and subsequent clauses, I firmly believe that the regional spatial strategy and local development framework two-tier planning system will work effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Statement of community involvement

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 292, in
clause 17, page 10, line 16, after 'persons', insert 'or businesses'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 200, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 16, at end insert 
 'live in the area covered by the local development scheme or'.
 No. 201, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 18, leave out 'their area' and insert 
 'the area covered by the development scheme'.
 No. 231, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(4) the Secretary of State may issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Clause 17 moves from the technicalities of what is in the plans and what documents have to be produced to how the community is to be involved.
 The lead amendment is a probing amendment. In a sense, we are discussing the clause in a vacuum. We have already teased out of the Minister the fact that he has appointed the consultants Llewellyn Davies to advise on the framework of the community involvement. It is regrettable that the Bill is being rushed through the House and that we are therefore discussing these matters in the absence of the consultants' report. The Minister said that he would let us have sight of it before the Bill passed through all its stages and I therefore make a special plea to him that it should be available in reasonable time before Report. It would be helpful to know from Government business managers when that is likely to be. Will it be before or after the half-term break? 
 In the absence of the consultants' report, we are left to speculate about what is in the Government's mind in respect of the statement of community involvement. The amendment attempts to probe whether business will have a role. Businesses have a vital economic interest in what is planned for their area and they should be involved in drawing up the plans and 
 documents, but it is not clear from the clause whether they will be involved. 
 Amendment No. 288 refers to 
''the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.''

Peter Pike: Order. Amendment No. 288 is not in this group of amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise, Mr. Pike. I am on the wrong page in my notes. That is the problem with being absent.

Peter Pike: We are considering amendment No. 292 and the others in the group.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Amendment No. 200 was also tabled to tease out from the Minister who will be involved and who will be entitled to be involved in the community statement. Will it be those who own property in the area, who live in the area, who have a business in the area? We need answers to those questions. Amendment No. 201 also seeks to discover whether it is those who live in the area or those who live outside but who have businesses in the area who are covered by the development scheme.
 Through amendment No. 231 the hon. Member for Ludlow wants the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We know all about guidance as it appears throughout the Bill, but as time goes on and things become more complex it is important for the local authorities who draw up the schemes and plans to have a precise idea what the statement will involve. 
 The Minister will no doubt have thought fairly carefully about what sections of the community will be involved, what role they will have in a particular area, and whether and how they will be consulted. He resisted my amendment on statements of community involvement for a region. I ask him to consider best practice, which will allow us to see how each local authority carries out the important function of preparing its statement of community involvement. Preparations will vary from one community to another, and we want to ensure that best practice is followed, because unless the local community feels involved it will become alienated from the planning system and more and more disenchanted with local authorities and other bodies involved in the system.

Paul Beresford: One thing that is becoming apparent to local government is that it is required to consult on just about everything. Consultation involves community involvement, and there is a distinct feeling of consultation fatigue. I want to support my hon. Friend on the importance of the broad spectrum. Local authorities should be made absolutely aware of some of the basic requirements, which must include types of individuals.
 The Minister will know from his 11 years on a planning committee that there are certain individuals whose lives seem to revolve around their interest in planning and planning objections. They turn up for every planning committee meeting, but they are not representative of the community. The business community, which is so busy at the moment trying 
 to earn enough money to pay its taxes, is inclined to glance at proposals and ignore them unless a specific point, which may relate only to it, hits it. 
 My hon. Friend is after an understanding that the Government are prepared to pressurise local authorities into involving business and the real community. When many people talk about the community, they forget that the business community provides the finance that directly or indirectly provides the buildings that come from the planning.

Sydney Chapman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold that the more one studies the Bill, the more one thinks it premature not only because no regional assemblies have been elected but because the necessary preparatory work—he mentioned consultancy—which the Government have been doing has not been concluded.
 The Committee has been cut down to 12 sittings, which seemed to mean 12 two-and-a-half-hour sittings. In just over an hour's time, we will probably have finished the sixth sitting, and we will have been required to complete consideration of parts 1 and 2.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The seriousness of what my hon. Friend is saying lies in the fact that the Bill hangs on parts 1 and 2. The Government's programme will mean that we have discussed less than half of part 1 and less than half of part 2 when the guillotine falls today. The two most important parts of the Bill will not have been properly discussed in Committee.

Sydney Chapman: I agree, but in the time available, I want to be as constructive as possible. Although I have put my name to amendment No. 292, which I stand by for reasons that I have explained, I want to help the Minister. It is just possible that in legal terminology the word ''persons'' includes businesses, although I do not know whether that is the case. If it is the case, so be it, but even then it would send the right signal to businesses, which we all want to help, to include the word ''businesses''. It would be a good gesture, even if it were found not to be legally necessary.
 I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne with great interest. He is on to some good points with amendments Nos. 200 and 201. I see no reason why that provision should not be written for those people who live or have businesses in the development area under consideration. I am really trying to be helpful to the Minister and the Government. Such provision would send out the right signals concerning the importance that they—we hope—attach to public co-operation in the exercise of town and country planning laws.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to refer to sending the right signals. Amendment No. 292 may well be unnecessary. The Minister could well say that ''persons'' in law covers businesses, and I would accept that. Equally, he might say that we would add unnecessary words. However, for the purposes of this afternoon's sitting, we should probe the Government on their view of business rather than just accept that inclusion. Some important signals have to be sent for
 several good reasons relating to planning. I support the amendment.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said that it was a good idea to send the right signals to businesses. The amendment also touches on another aspect of such signals. We must send the right signals to protesters. When a business states that it wants to see whatever is suggested go ahead under the planning procedure, I am very weary indeed of hearing protestors say, ''Business would say, that wouldn't it? It wants to make a profit out of us.'' I invite the Minister to agree that it is important for us to flag up the fact that businesses need to be successful. 
 One purpose of a plan must be to assist businesses. Again, I fall back on arguments about Heathrow airport, terminal 5 and the forthcoming runway as an example of what concerns me. When it is suggested that a new terminal or a new runway is built, one can predict what certain people will say. There will be a furious outcry as people say, ''We don't want this here,'' for various environmental reasons. The consultation refers to people who seem to have an interest, and I will say more about that when I come to the relevant amendments. 
 When a business such as BAA plc, or British Airways or any other airline that uses a facility as important as Heathrow, says that it believes in the proposals of a strategic plan for the future, be it a national, local or regional issue, we should recognise that it is not only entitled to do so, but it should do so. It is crucial that we listen to business. We should stamp very firmly on those who sneer and always say, ''All they want to do is increase their profits''. I make no apologies for wanting BAA and BA to make ever more profits. 
 I hasten to add that I have no interests to declare. I have never owned shares in BA or BAA. I have no personal interest in the matter; I mention it only because those companies and other airlines generate about 120,000 jobs in the area. If that is not a strategic matter that should be looked after by a plan, what is? 
 The amendment is important because we are flagging up the fact that, far from its being somehow underhand for a business to have a say, it is crucial that it should do so. Business interest in much strategic planning is fundamental to the viability of the community and the continued prosperity or recovery from recession that the plan may be designed to achieve. Although the Minister might ultimately say that ''persons'' means businesses, I hope that he will accept, and I encourage him to agree, that businesses play a vital and legitimate role. Indeed, we should encourage them rather than suggest that they are acting against the interests of local people. 
 Amendment No. 200 relates to consultation. I agonised over whether to amend the Bill in such a way that it referred to people who ''live in the area or have an interest'' or whether to remove the phrase ''have an interest''. I am weary of the self-appointed few who claim to speak for everyone when they oppose projects such as Heathrow, but who almost never live in my constituency. They draw attention to themselves because of the row that they make, their misleading 
 claims and the nonsense that they speak. It is easy to home in on such people because they appear to have an interest—my word, they have an obsession and think of nothing else. The phraseology in the clause makes it easy to say that they should be consulted on issues such as Heathrow airport, but if the Government encourage and consult such people, the result will be mass redundancies in my constituency, which I will never allow. 
 That is why the amendment refers to people who ''live in the area''. We are all used to dealing with the silent majority, and we must make it clear that we want to hear from individuals rather than people who are members of something. The great self-appointed chairman—or chairperson, if that makes the Minister happier—of a protest group thinks that he has the right to see the Minister because his group represents this, that and the other even when it patently does not. We want to hear from all the ordinary people—the individuals who live in the area—but we must first get past those who claim to have an interest. Amendment No. 200 would go some way towards achieving that. Again, if the Minister accepts the point, but does not like the wording, I would be perfectly happy to hear an alternative. 
 Amendment No. 201 may look pedantic, but it is not. Under the Bill, those who should be consulted—whether or not they live in the area—must 
''have an interest in matters relating to development in their area.''
 If that stays as it is, people will have a splendid invitation to indulge in even more nimbyism than they already do. They could take the phrase ''in their area'' to mean where they live, but a plan may cover a big area. Those with an interest in the little bit where they live may support its principle and say, ''Yes, a runway is a good idea.'' However, they might add, ''But not in my area. Put it somewhere else.'' 
 The amendment would require that when those who live in an area and who have an interest are consulted and make representations, they must focus on the whole area covered by the plan rather than just the little area in which they live. That would ensure that the consultations were about the whole area and that people did not say ''Leave my little bit out and put the project somewhere else.'' We suffer enough from nimbyism, without legislation adding to the problem. 
 I know that the Minister takes all our points seriously, but these have real substance. All Opposition Members support consultation, but we must involve as many people as possible and focus their minds on all the interests involved in a plan. All too often, people focus only on the environmental downside.

Tony McNulty: In the clause and the amendments, we deal for the first time with the statement of community involvement, so it might be useful if I expand on our approach. Everyone agrees that the community must be effectively involved in preparing and reviewing plans, and the hon. Member for Cotswold made precisely that point when he referred to legitimacy and ownership. I fully concur. That
 engagement with the community is also crucial when the authority considers applications at the coal face—dealing with planning permission and applications, for example—so that all relevant viewpoints are taken into account. However, the level and quality of community engagement varies, to say the least, across our planning system. Some local planning authorities—this is not necessarily a partisan point—have well developed mechanisms for engaging people at all stages, from the preparation of a plan to the determination of applications. In other authorities there is far less recognition of the purpose and benefits of involving the public.
 A major aim of the planning reform agenda is for local planning to be founded on the aspirations of the community and for community participation to be put higher up the agenda for local planning authorities. The SCI is a statement of the authority's policy on engaging the public in the preparation of local development documents, and in the exercise of the authority's functions under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That relates to control over development, such as, for example, the consideration of applications for planning permission. The statement of community involvement affects both ends of the local planning spectrum, from the development and formulation of policies that go into the plans, all the way through to the development control of the planning application process at the other end. 
 The Secretary of State will set out in regulations minimum standards for community engagement, in respect of both the LDD preparation and, to use the shorthand, the development control functions—planned applications, and so on. Such minimum standards will apply to all local planning authorities in England, will be based on current good practice, and are not intended to create unreasonable burdens for local authorities. I would suggest that the greater the community participation at the earliest stage in the drawing up of local development documents and in various aspects of local planning, the greater the legitimacy of the subsequent decisions made on planning applications. The hon. Member for Cotswold is entirely right that we have engaged Llewellyn-Davies, which is now in the final stages of research to identify both what the benchmarks could be on good practice, and examples of good practice in cases in which the standards have been achieved. I shall ensure that that publication, a summary of it, or some form of it that is useful, is available to all hon. Members as early as is physically possible. 
 For obvious reasons, I cannot promise that before the end of this Committee. I have given myself the target of before Report Stage. As an ex-member of the usual channels, I would not dare stand up as a Minister and suggest what those channels had determined would happen on Report. Some of my hon. Friends think that ex-Whips have greater favour with the current Whips Office. However, I am living proof that that is not the case. I fully understand that, temporarily or otherwise, I am out of that loop. I am a Minister, not a Whip or a member of the usual 
 channels. The hon. Gentleman will therefore have to seek guidance elsewhere on when Report will take place. However, I shall try to ensure that a summary, or the report itself, is available to hon. Members as early as possible. 
 There will also be support for the benchmarks in what comes out of that publication with the revision of PPG 12 on developing plans and the ''Making Plans'' guide, which is a document from Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the statement of community involvement, the local planning authority will be able to set additional standards for public engagement over and above those contained in regulations. The SCI will define those additional standards as appropriate to local circumstances, and set out the actions that the local planning authority will undertake to meet the standards that are set. That will be in addition to the statutory procedures and safeguards under part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and will continue to apply as under that Act, in respect of local development document preparation. I have no idea what the final details of the guidance will be, but I exhort local planning authorities to be a tad more generous in the notification process. There is no notification unless a pathway leads to part of the garden that backs on to a particular development site, even if that garden is just 1 yd or so from it, because the building on that site has no direct connection with the development site. We must recognise that people have a wider interest. 
 The SCI may also need to explain how the local planning authority intends to apply the prescribed benchmarks. The statement could also specify which bodies and authorities would encourage developers to consult in advance of submitting applications for significant development, although that must be seen in the context of other elements under the development and control dimension of the Bill. Developers will not face any sanctions if they do not comply, as local planning authorities will still consult them once an application has been made. We will discuss related issues later. However, we will encourage developers to undertake such consultation on the basis that it will improve the quality of planning applications and may smooth the path to planning permission. 
 As I said, we envisage that each authority's SCI will set out arrangements and standards to be achieved in involving the community in the preparation, alteration and continuing review of all parts of the local development framework, and that they will offer simple and clear guidelines that will enable the community to know, and have confidence in, when and how the planning authority will consult it about planning applications.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have discussed many times the powers of the Secretary of State and the RPB, who will dictate the development schemes and documents from the top. Will the Minister say what weight will be given to guidance from the Secretary of State and the region as opposed to the views and wishes of local people in drawing up these local development plans and documents?

Tony McNulty: In essence, the Secretary of State's guidance is about the framework and processes, not
 the substance and detail, which is the development and control dimension. Under the local development scheme, the substance and detail will be left to the local planning authority, with all its appropriate local development documents, or will be approved by the Secretary of State—through the mystical board that we will discuss later. The final decision and appeals process is left to the local planning authority, as at present. I advise hon. Members not to get lost in lending different weight to different aspects of the overall planning, development and control framework. Different elements have different weights at different parts of the process, whether at the planning stage or at the tail end of the development and control stage.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is a critical point. House-building targets are part of an important national policy. If local people make it clear that the target that the RPB has handed down to them is excessive, what opportunity will they and the SCI have to express that belief and for it to be included in local plans?

Tony McNulty: The short answer is none. The statement of community involvement will not be about reflecting the views of the local planning authority or local people on particular policies in the RSS. I made it clear that the statement of community involvement will be about how communities will be involved in the formulation and gestation of the local development documents at one end to the local planning framework at the other. There is clearly a role for local people and local bodies such as local planning authorities during the formulation period of the regional spatial strategy, but for obvious reasons that I will not repeat—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to do so—we determined that it would not be appropriate to have a statement of community involvement at RSS level given its spatial and regional concept.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister confirm, to be helpful to the Committee, that the SCI is all about process and not about policy?

Tony McNulty: It is clearly about the process by which the community, which I shall define in a moment, has an input into the development of planning documents in the local development framework and the decision-making process of the local planning authority. It is therefore about how the community can be involved, which is why—funnily enough—it is called a statement of community involvement. It is not about a specific interpretation of local, national or regional policy by the local community, however that is defined, or by the local planning authority. It is a process and a structure through which local people can be engaged in the planning process, and bring with them their own interpretation of specific policies, whether national, regional or local.
 It would, however, be wholly inappropriate for the London borough of Harrow or the London borough of Barnet, or any other borough, to say in their statement of community involvement something along the lines of, ''We have determined that we will have nothing to do with Mayor Livingstone's London plan, so if the community supports that plan, we will disregard anything that it wants to say in relation to 
 the gestation of local development documents or the development control process.'' That sort of specific, policy-focused element should have no part in the statement of community involvement. The SCI is a part of a process to empower and unlock people's ability to get involved and participate in both ends of the planning process. 
 Amendment No. 292 raises the issue of whether a local planning authority can set out its policies for involving businesses in the preparation of local development documents and in—to refer to it in shorthand—the development control and planning permission function. I assure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that the term ''person'' encompasses bodies, organisations and businesses as well as individuals. I also assure him that local authorities, in preparing their local development documents, will consult businesses along with other particular groups, as they are encouraged to do now through PPG 12. They are also encouraged to do that in ''Making Plans''—a jazzy little document about ''Good Practice in Plan Preparation and Management of the Development Plan Process.'' That document includes private businesses, local voluntary and community groups and local people among those groups that the Government expect local planning authorities to consult. 
 I endorse, in general terms, what the hon. Gentleman said about businesses. The notion that those engaged in business or economic activity in a particular local or regional economy have no role to play in the determination of the future in planning or in other aspects is absolute nonsense. That does not afford the business sector any more or less legitimacy than any other element of the community to voice a view or play a role in the local planning world, but it is beyond doubt that the business community and those engaged in economic activity in a particular area should have a role. 
 I deprecate the suggestion that there is something fishy or suspicious about those who run businesses or are engaged in economic activity becoming involved in or having concern for their local area: that area is, after all, their local economic base and their local market. The business community anywhere in the country is an important part of the wider community and should be treated as such, and in the context of SCIs, that will be the case. 
 Amendment No. 200 would make express provision for every SCI to cover residents of the authority's areas. As currently drafted, the clause requires the SCI to set out the authority's policies on involving 
''persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to the development in their area.''
 Amendment No. 201 would specify that it should cover persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in 
''the area covered by the development scheme.''
 I have already explained at some length how the SCI will operate and what we intend that it should specify, and I hope that I will, in your judgment, Mr. Pike, 
 have pre-empted a clause stand part debate. I am, however, happy to confirm that the residents of an authority's area will be covered in the regulations setting minimum standards for community engagement in consultation and participation. We also intend to encourage authorities, through guidance, to set out in their SCI what more they will do in that respect. Under clause 18(2)(a), local planning authorities will be required to have regard for the guidance when preparing their statements of community involvement. Additionally, SCIs will be subject to independent examination, which will provide for the local planning authorities' proposals to be tested. We do not think that amendment No. 200 is required. SCIs will cover the residents of the authorities' areas. 
 On amendment No. 201, it might help if I explain how the Bill's various provisions fit together. An authority's local development scheme will set out the local development documents that are to be prepared. Taken together, the documents must set out an authority's policies, however expressed, relating to the development and use of land in its area. The statement of community involvement will set out the authority's policies on involving the community in the preparation of its local development documents. 
 Those provisions mean that there is no doubt that all an authority's area will be covered by the local development documents and that an authority's entire area will be covered by the statement of community involvement. I confirm that there will be only one statutory statement of community involvement. Authorities might wish to set out different policies for different local development documents. They will be underpinned by the minimum standards required by regulation in the SCI. 
 Amendment No. 231 would give the Secretary of State the express power to issue guidance to local planning authorities on the nature and extent of the community involvement to be provided in a statement of community involvement. As I said, regulations will set out the minimum standards of consultation and participation that will apply to local development documents and they will build on the current arrangements that I mentioned. We have commissioned research from Llewelyn-Davies, which is in the final stage of its research to identify the possible minimum standards and examples of those standards being achieved through real-life good practice. We are well down the line of establishing the regulations, which means that amendment No. 231 is not necessary. For the reasons that I suggested, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister because he has been incredibly helpful and it is useful to have what we have been told on record.
 I referred to best practice in my opening remarks, and the Minister said that that varies greatly from authority to authority when he talked about community involvement under the 1990 Act. Will the Minister undertake to disseminate best practice and to incorporate that in the guidance when the system is up 
 and running? That would allow us to bring the worst local authorities up toward the best.

Tony McNulty: I go quite a way with the hon. Gentleman but I would have to consider whether it would be worth incorporating that subsequently into guidance. PPG12 is explicit on how to develop plans and ''Making Plans'' is a practical guide containing best practice. I commend that document to the Committee although it is not part of the guidance. I would have to consider whether to use those two documents, perhaps by incorporation, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will consider it because the issue is important.
 To hark back to an earlier debate, one reason why it is appropriate that the provisions are explicit in the Bill—as are those relating to local development documents that will be part of the development plan—is that we can afford the protection of guidance and try to disseminate, and encourage, at least the minimum standard, and try to get all authorities above that benchmark, as Llewelyn-Davies will say when its report comes out. 
 I apologise to you and thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Pike, during our discussion of the amendments. It is the first time that statements of community involvement have been considered and given their importance , I thought it appropriate to talk now about what we are trying to do with SCIs, rather than during a clause stand part debate. I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The Minister said that his comments ranged somewhat wider than the amendments. Have you reached a view on whether to allow a clause stand part debate? I could address issues arising from the Minister's comments now because the debate has moved wider, or I could keep them until the clause stand part debate, if you are minded to allow that.

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Minister answered many points. I have listened to the debate and the clause is important, although it is relatively short and tight. I shall allow a relatively short stand part debate but I hope that hon. Members will respect that judgment because the Minister made several points clearly. I hope that that will curtail the length of the stand part debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In dealing with the amendments, the Minister has been incredibly helpful. As he made clear, the statement of community involvement is an important part of the planning system, and will help people to feel involved. It is understood that the Minister will produce some clear guidance on that, and there already are clear instructions on how that involvement is to be achieved in the document that he mentions. On that basis, and having explored the issue in considerable detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: I have given guidance on the clause stand part debate, and I hope that hon. Members will respect it.

David Wilshire: I have just one matter to discuss. It follows on from some of the points that I made in the debate on the amendments, but I was deliberately trying to confine myself to the amendments only.
 As you rightly said, Mr. Pike, this is an extremely important part of the Bill. Everyone in Committee—indeed, the House—would say that the more we involved the community in the process, the better, and the more likely it will be that the community will feel a sense of ownership of the plan produced by the experts. I welcome that, and am not speaking against the clause. However, simply saying that something will happen does not mean that it will. The Minister has said what should happen under the Bill, but have he, his Department or anyone in Government made any attempt at being proactive in helping the community to get involved? 
 As I mentioned earlier, if the Bill simply says that a formal system of community involvement is to take place, it will all too readily take place within the framework of what is available at the moment, rather than what we should have for the future. The list of consultees will be a list of pressure groups, almost all of which will be against things. I do not believe that that is good and serious community involvement. We had a debate earlier about parish councils, and I shall not re-open it, but has the Minister given any thought to encouraging the creation of parish councils where they do not exist? 
 There is provision in legislation—unless it has been repealed, and I do not think that is has—for community councils to be set up in areas such as the Minister's own. I say that because such councils would allow democratic representation in the consultation process. The huge difference between the parish council and the pressure group or residents association is that the parish council has democratic credentials. It has been elected to speak on behalf of the people. That is in contrast to the typical consultation process. I shall give an example of how that process can so readily go wrong. It refers to a small matter, but it makes the point beautifully. 
 In a street in my constituency there are some trees, some of which are held to be dangerous and rotten. The county council, quite rightly, addressed whether the trees should be cut down, and finally agreed to consult. It noticed that a protest group on cutting down the trees has been set up, and as a result, decided that the consultation with the public should be made not through local county councillors, although the county council will set it up, but through the pressure group. The people who turned up at the meeting to elect the officers of the pressure group were—surprise, surprise—those against cutting down the trees, and the county council has gone on to say that ''consultation'' means meeting representatives of the pressure group in the street to consider the trees. 
 My mailbag tells me that a number of people scattered about the place want the wretched things cut down, but a formal process of consultation that would 
 meet the requirements of the Bill has been undertaken, and a group of people who appear to be speaking on behalf of the community is to be consulted. That is not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will listen to this argument and see that there is a role for a proactive contribution to the improvement of the process of consultation. It works well in some cases, but it works very badly in others, and it works worst in cases where there are no organisations such as parish, community and town councils, because that means that democracy is lacking and self-appointed people participate. I hope that the Minister is giving thought to how to improve consultation.

Tony McNulty: We always seek to be proactive, to find examples of best practice and to assist in aid where that is necessary: that is the case not only in the context of this Bill, but more broadly. Getting Llewelyn-Davies to go out and find best practice where it exists is a part of that process, as is coming up with documents such as ''Making Plans''. That paper goes above and beyond guidance or anything that we need to do, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 62 which refers to some excellent participation events for the development of the Cotswold local plan, which I am sure that I will be able to commend to the Committee.
 In clause 80, we seek the leave of the House to get to a stage where we can get grants for advice and assistance to other bodies, such as Planning Aid, that will do what is formally set out in the Bill. Over the coming couple of weeks, we will determine how we resource such bodies; that will happen when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement on the communities plan. 
 I am mindful of what you said earlier, Mr. Pike, so I will say no more. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Preparation of local development documents

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 232, in
clause 18, page 10, line 29, after 'to', insert 'all material considerations including'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 288, in
clause 18, page 10, line 29, at end insert— 
 '( ) the economic development plan which has been adopted by the authority and the Regional Economic Strategy for the region in which the area of the authority is situated.'.
 No. 203, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 43, after first 'the', insert 'local and national'.
 No. 293, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 44, at end insert— 
 '(ia) the waste and minerals strategy prepared by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority; 
 (ib) the community strategy prepared by the authority; 
 (ic) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority; 
 (id) any other local development document which has been adopted by the authority; 
 (ie) the resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document;'.
 No. 125, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert— 
 '(k) minerals and waste development documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority. 
 (l) other relevant documents adopted by any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.
 No. 216, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert— 
 '(k) a strategy relating to flooding'.
 No. 291, in 
clause 18, page 10, line 45, at end insert— 
 '( ) the minerals and waste development scheme for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Ludlow is absent, but I am sure that he would not mind my moving his amendment No. 232.
 Clause 18 contains a long but incomplete list of what must be considered in drawing up local development documents. I have some sympathy with the amendment, because the Bill requires the local planning authority to have regard to paragraphs (a) to (j), which implies—although I am sure that this is not the explicit power—that that is all that they need consider. Many other things must be considered, some of which are incorporated in our large group of amendments, others of which are not—and amendment No. 232 alludes to the fact that many other matters will need to be taken into consideration. 
 I turn to my party's amendments—those from amendment No 288 onwards. They were suggested to us by the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations. Their purpose is to ensure that local authorities have proper regard to economic considerations when preparing a local development document. The CBI told us that they accept that hard decisions about economic, social and environmental priorities for land use will often have to be made in the interests of sustainable development. The planning system has the role of balancing those often competing demands. However, clause 18 lacks a meaningful economic dimension, even though the link between planning and economic development is crucial—we touched on that in our discussion of the previous clause. 
 The promotion and improvement of the economic well being of their area should be an important—I would say vital—focus for local communities. As has been said, the generation of wealth by businesses in a local area keeps the vibrancy and general sustainability of that area; otherwise it will start to run downhill. For that reason, a better understanding of the local and regional economic contexts and priorities will underpin an improved guidance system and will help 
 to ensure that there is not a growing bias in the system against development. We also seek an assurance on other key strategies, such as those regarding local and regional transport. We have not discussed transport strategies, but it is important, in the context of the clause and the Bill in general, to understand how local transport plans will link with the other plans and documents. In particular, we should understand how those would be integrated to inform the planning process effectively. 
 I move on to deal with some specific matters, especially amendment No. 203, which deals with paragraph (i). Were it amended, paragraph (i) would read: 
''the local and national resources likely to be available for implementing the proposals in the document''.
 I had a long discussion yesterday with the Quarry Products Association, which has some reservations about the Bill. Much of the minerals planning in this country is currently dealt with by county councils and the association feels that there is much inconsistency between authorities. For example, when planning applications for minerals are granted in Essex, a section 106 agreement often contains about 20 specific reservations, whereas in Leicestershire such an agreement contains up to 60 reservations. However, the two authorities are basically doing exactly the same thing. Clearly, some authorities can do minerals planning in a much more direct and simple way than others. We should be doing minerals and waste planning on a larger basis, rather than leaving it to individual local authorities. On drawing up local plans, the Minister must tell the Committee how he would consult the individual county councils and individual unitary authorities that would still be responsible for drawing up minerals and waste strategies and how that could be done more consistently at national level. 
 Amendments Nos. 293 and 125 deal with minerals and waste. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors suggested the wording of the amendments and it has said that they are intended to ensure that local development documents are prepared with explicit regard to the relevant mineral and waste strategy. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands that says how the minerals and waste strategy should be considered by a local authority in drawing up its development documents. The RICS has said that such strategies are of both strategic and practical importance in respect of local planning issues and that they should be clearly and unambiguously set out in the list of matters for consideration in the clause. 
 The RICS told us: 
''In order to maintain coherence between county-prepared waste and mineral plans and locally-prepared development documents, authorities should have regard to each other's plans when preparing such documents.''
 I would have thought that that was a matter of common sense. I would, however, like the Minister to say, for the record, whether that will be the case; otherwise, it could result in a lack of effective co-ordination and create a potential conflict. For example, the situation may arise in which a minerals 
 plan may contain land allocated for aggregates, while the local authority may, in a local development document, allocate the same land to housing. In order to avoid such confusion, it would be helpful to clarify the position. Since the waste and minerals functions would remain with the counties, it is important to integrate those properly with the broader proposals in the Bill. 
 On amendment No. 125, and on a point regarding the minerals strategy brought to us by the CPRE, how will the minimisation of the use of aggregates be considered in the plan? It is an important point. A large amount of ex-building material could be refurbished and reused instead of the enormous amount of aggregates that we currently mine and use. Materials such as road planings can be used in place of aggregates. Local authorities have a duty to consider this when drawing up their strategies, and they have a duty to ensure that when applicants submit their detailed drawings the specification is not over-specified, because it is far easier to use raw new aggregate than recycled aggregate, but in many cases recycled aggregate can do just as good a job as raw aggregate from the ground—and, in many cases, the sea bed. 
 The Local Government Association also had an input into amendment No. 125. It tells us: 
''The proposals to integrate land use plans and community strategies envisage land use plans becoming spatial development strategies for their areas. These spatial development strategies will be the key to the implementation of community strategies, environmental strategies and the policies, programmes and investment of all organisations in an area. These will include transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment strategies.
Minerals and waste development document are going to be statutory documents prepared by county councils. Local planning authorities need to have regard to them in the preparation of LDDs''.
 Amendment No. 216 concerns flooding. We have discussed flooding on previous clauses, but it is particularly pertinent at this time of year. Houses in my constituency have been flooded not only with water but with raw sewage. Having visited a house flooded with raw sewage, I can say that it is a nasty experience. To continue to build houses within the flood plain where there are inadequate arrangements to deal with foul effluent is absolute folly. It must be a critical part of drawing up the plan to identify the location of the flood plains and the effect on existing developments of building on flood plains. We all know that the footings of a large number of houses containing concrete can force water out of one area into another. If an existing housing estate lower than the new housing estate is standing on the other area, it is likely to be flooded as a result of the new development. 
 That does not make sense, but it happens far too often in this country. Too many houses are flooded each year. We will have to pay more and more attention to that when drawing up such plans. The Environment Agency plans are a one-in-a-100-year event. With climate change we will have to look at planning for shorter periods. In other words, we may have to over-specify in dealing with developments in 
 and around flood plains to ensure that new developments do not cause additional problems. 
 I am sure that other members of the Committee will have examples from their constituencies of planning problems. I am sorry to get earthy, Mr. Pike, but I must discuss the sewerage infrastructure in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned Lechlade, whose surrounding area is at the source of the Thames. It is a low-lying area. When the Thames comes up in the winter, the sewer in the low-lying areas—of which there are several—is simply unable to discharge and backs up. It has backed up as far as Cirencester. I am glad to say that Thames Water has taken measures to alleviate the problem, although it has not yet entirely cracked it for Cirencester and the villages in that low-lying area. 
 Clearly, in drawing up its local plan, Cotswold district council would have to pay very careful attention to any new development in such areas. Indeed, I have gently asked it to resist any new development in those villages until the sewerage problem has been solved. It seems absolute folly to approve new developments if existing problems have not been solved. 
 I have dealt with some of the items that could be included on what would be a huge list, and I am sure that my colleagues will add others. The plan is all-encompassing. It tells local authorities how they are to consider not only the spatial and land use environment but the economic and social environment. Several items must be contained in the local plans. It is a difficult process—that is why it takes so long—and the more we put on the list, the longer it will take. However, if items such as flooding need to be on the list, they should be there. It will be very interesting to hear from the Minister what he expects local authorities to consider in drawing up their plans.

Sydney Chapman: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend, who clearly is an expert on the problems of sewerage and the Severn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Thames.

Sydney Chapman: The Thames, then. He has shown us today that there are brains in the drains.
 The Minister will recall that earlier today we had a little spat on amendment No. 88. I tried to point out that there were precedents in the Bill for putting additional requirements on the local planning authority, the Secretary of State or whoever it may be. That has come up on some of the amendments that we have already discussed and will come up on others still to come. I do not wish to rehearse the argument on clause 15, apart from saying that we wanted to add to subsection (1) paragraphs that would pinpoint four considerations that should be included in the scheme for minerals and waste development. 
 We are now debating clause 18(2): 
''In preparing a local development document the local planning authority must have regard to''—
 and the Bill lists 10 specific items. I shall leave it at that—it rather proves my point—and go on to speak 
 very briefly about the Conservative amendments. Our amendments are linked to amendment No. 232, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I comment with some hesitation on his purpose, because for very understandable reasons he cannot intervene or comment. However, it is unnecessary to add to subsection (2) that the local authority must have regard to ''all material considerations''. I made the point before that we must cut down the verbiage in the Bill as much as we reasonably can. Therefore, I would not accept amendment No. 232. 
 The Bill lists 10 specific items. The Minister may say, with some effect, that we are trying to create a Christmas tree Bill by proposing in amendments Nos. 293, 125, 216 and 291 to add nine other specific categories. I hope that I have made the point—the amendments are important. I also very much support amendment No. 288. It is right to mention specifically the need for an economic development plan. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the importance of including amendment No. 216. The issue is not only topical but important. My constituency is blessed with many things, if not its Member of Parliament, but it is generally on a hill. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and the Committee that flood problems can arise on hills. He mentioned the backing up of sewerage systems or rainwater gully systems, which can come right down the hill. I have terrible flooding problems in certain areas of Chipping Barnet caused by water coming down the hills, not inadequate drainage or flash floods. In recognising the importance of flooding and the need for a strategy to deal with it, the Committee should accept that it does not affect only the flood plains near rivers or in some coastal areas.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that my hon. Friend with his specific knowledge is aware that the Ordnance Survey is drawing up plans to try to identify better boundaries of flood plains. Would he join me in urging the Minister to speed up the production of those plans so that they are available when local authorities are considering precisely that point?

Sydney Chapman: Yes, certainly. I always like to walk through a door that is opened in front of me. In return, I would ask my hon. Friend to support my contention that these matters affect not only the flood plain but other areas of the country. I hope that the Minister will give a fair wind to our amendments.

David Wilshire: Because of the hour, I will confine myself to comments on two of the amendments. The Minister may be tempted to think that amendment No. 203 is somewhat pedantic and that the matter is self-evident, but it is important at least to have the opportunity to press him on whether the Government have given any thought to making long-term statements about how they propose to fund the regions, whether artificial or not. It is all very well to ask the artificial region in the south-east to produce a strategic plan to make suggestions to draw up schemes for doing this, that and the other, but as he will know only too well, the Government are hell-bent on removing money from the south-east.
 Year on year, it gets worse and worse. We have no idea from one year to the next how much money will be available and what resources there will be in the south-east. We do not even know whether the Government have any intention of addressing the appalling situation in the south-east where, because of national pay scales, people can earn exactly the same for doing the same sort of job in Yorkshire or in the south-east, yet houses in Yorkshire cost less than half as much as houses in the south-east. There is no point in going through the exercise of drawing up plans if the Government will not make a long-term commitment about the national resources that will be made available and what they intend to do to address some of those difficulties. 
 On amendment No. 216, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold made some pertinent points about new developments. It is important to make it clear that we want a strategy on flooding, not an ad hoc approach to problems. Maidenhead, Eton and Windsor had problems. Something was done about that. All the water that would have flooded Maidenhead in the past few weeks was neatly taken round the outside through the Jubilee river project. There is a well-held suspicion, which may be proved correct, that the water moved on from Maidenhead has simply been dumped in my constituency and those of my neighbouring colleagues. That is not a strategy. It is solving problems on an ad hoc basis and causing other problems. I have already rehearsed the argument about how flooding strategies often need to go beyond the artificial regions. I mentioned Lechlade and made the point that any strategy for the Thames must go well beyond the south-east. We have debated that, so I will just plead that the justification for providing for a flooding strategy needs to be exactly that. A flooding strategy involves more than solving a problem without thinking about what will be created further along the river. 
 Strategies must be multi-agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, it is all very well to solve the flooding problem. Along the Thames, the response has been to say, ''There's a lot of river water, what are we going to do about it?'', and I have made the case for a strategy that deals with the flooding, but we also have to consider what happens if we move that flood water around and dump it somewhere else that may not be on a suitable flood plain. In my constituency, for example, the result of having flooding in new places is that extra pressure is put on the sewerage pumps and sewage then backs up. Whole estates in my constituency have been awash with awful raw sewage, and there is now the problem of clearing it out of people's gardens and houses. That is because there was not a multi-agency approach to planning for potential flooding. The Environment Agency, bless it, has done a great deal, and I am grateful to it, but it does not seem to have liaised with Thames Water about what would happen to the sewage after the river flooding was solved. 
 I could pursue those points, and more issues need ventilating, but I am conscious of the time. I have indicated to the Minister the general area of my argument and what we are seeking to achieve. I have 
 pointed out why I believe that it is important to include a flooding strategy, why that strategy must be comprehensive rather than an ad hoc set of solutions, and how it must be multi-agency so that solving one problem does not create a different one. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Tony McNulty: All the matters that have been raised are serious and need to be dealt with, although many of them should perhaps not be deal with in a Bill that looks to the future planning system of this country.
 If the hon. Member for Ludlow were here, I would say in the nicest way possible that amendment No. 232 is just plain daft. It is clear in the current planning system and any subsequent planning system or legal framework what ''material consideration'' means, which is anything deemed material to a specific planning application or document. It is deliberately set out to be a sweep-up phrase under law, and to put that into the context of the preparation of local development documents would be plainly daft and—I will try to put this gently—the proposal is either a representation of a misinterpretation of what ''material consideration'' means in the lexicon of planning or an attempt to make the clause entirely unworkable. Given the hon. Gentleman's erudition, intellectual capacity and generous and overwhelmingly constructive spirit when he is with us, I am sure that the amendment is daft rather than malign or destructive. I will say that when he is present as well, but his amendment does not bear any discussion beyond that. It is not well thought out. 
 I fully accept that the other amendments touch on serious points that matter to all our constituencies, but I assure Opposition Members that they are covered in the 10 items listed in clause 18. The notion of economic development and the RSS is more than covered, with regard needing to be given to the RSS and successive documents. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cotswold was not present this morning, as he would have heard an interesting and lengthy debate about minerals and waste. They, too, will have to be taken account of in the context of the local development document. There is no need to add other matters. 
 I am a little perplexed by amendment No. 293, which would repeat many of the elements already included, or perhaps it merely seeks to renumber them. I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about a flooding strategy and flash flooding. The good fortune for the hon. Gentleman is that when the Environment Agency finishes its work in the Silk stream to prevent flooding in Hendon—the constituency between his and mine—that part of Harrow and Barnet might be drier and less susceptible to flooding. It is not appropriate to suggest that it is all about building houses in the wrong place. The Silk stream and the River Pinn, further to the west in Harrow, have had flooding problems that go back well beyond the last century and the century before that. 
 The Environment Agency is not only doing a good job in carrying out flood alleviation works but it actually listens to local people and if they do not like what is going to be built it does not go ahead. 
 However, a Bill that will renew the planning system is not the appropriate place for a detailed operational review of flooding strategy: the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are the appropriate agencies in that respect. The Bill is relevant within the context of precautionary guidance on subsequent new developments under planning and development control law. As I said, those precautions are set out in PPG 25, which needs to be taken fully into account in the preparation of local development documents. 
 Yes, flooding is important and it must be taken into account in precautionary planning, especially in the context of new developments. I broadly accept that there will be significant housing growth in London and the south-east, which will need to be carefully planned, not least because there have been floods in places where there ain't been floods for a considerable time. In Northampton and places such as Shropshire, where they are used to it, the floods came with a vengeance and were far worse than before. DEFRA and the Environment Agency are responsible for dealing with the existing problems, and we are taking a precautionary approach, with guidance to prevent further problems in the future. 
 I do not have time to rehearse the issue of minerals and waste, but the hon. Member for Cotswold, who missed the debate on that subject, can read the report in Hansard when it is available—I agree with him on that matter, too.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Quickly, will the Minister say how the local transport plan will interact with the local plan?

Tony McNulty: Again, I think the hon. Gentleman had just about rejoined us when we dealt with the first amendment in the sitting. First, the local transport plan does not relate to all authorities, so it would not be appropriate in that respect; secondly, it is essentially a bidding document; and thirdly, the LDD has to take cognisance of the RSS, and wider local and regional transport issues have to be taken into account at both
 levels. The local transport plan is not an appropriate document in this respect, as it is essentially a bidding document for a range of authorities, not all of which will be local planning authorities.
 For those reasons, I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's reply was partly helpful. The catch-all paragraph (j)—
''such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes''—
 will doubtless help him out of holes and muddles— 
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clauses 18 to 36 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 18 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: May I inform the Committee that because of an error in column 18 of the Hansard for our Tuesday morning sitting, the report is being withdrawn and reprinted? The original instead of the revised timetable motion was printed in error.
 Adjourned at two minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 21 January at five minutes to Nine o'clock.